Case law

Pierce Oil Corp. v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 403 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 17, 1935

The case is controlled in principle by Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U. S. 445 ; North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U. S. 417 ; Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193 ; Pharr v. Commissioner, 56 Fed. (2d) 832. … Brown v. Helvering, supra.

Kast v. Commissioner

78 T.C. 1154 · United States Tax Court · Jun 29, 1982

The District Court in Brown v. United States, 292 F. Supp. 527 (D. … Ohio 1974), stated that the taxpayer had cited the case of Brown v.

General Sec. Co. v. Commissioner

38 B.T.A. 330 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Aug 16, 1938

Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 465 ; Helvering v. Brown, 85 Fed. (2d) 926; Sawtell v. Commissioner, 82 Fed. (2d) 221; A. S. Eldridge, 30 B. T. … Heiner v. Crosby, 24 Fed. (2d) 191; Houghton v. Commissioner, 71 Fed. (2d) 656, 658; Laird v. Commissioner, 85 Fed. (2d) 598, 599; Jenkins v. Smith, 21 Fed. Supp. 251.

Sufi Network Services, Inc. v. United States

122 Fed. Cl. 257 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2015

The additional Board proceedings resulted from the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, 755 F.3d 1305 (Fed. … In 1951, the Supreme Court decided United States v.

Special Counsel ex rel. Judy Kachanes v. Department of Agriculture

Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 3, 2014

JUDY KACHANES, CB-1208-14-0021-U-2 Petitioner, v. … THIS STAY ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL ∗ Peta-Gay Irving Brown, Esquire, Oakland, California, for the petitioner.

Lykes-Youngstown Corporation v. The United States

420 F.2d 735 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 23, 1970

This court stated in Cresswell v. … See also The Franklin Co. v. United States, 381 F.2d 416 , 180 Ct.Cl. 666 (1967) ; City of Memphis, Tenn., etc. *744 v. Ford Motor Co., 304 F.2d 845, 849 (6th Cir. 1962).

United Contractors, a Co-Partnership Consisting of James E. Ward, Elkin Morris and Andrew J. Dickies v. The United States

368 F.2d 585 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 368 F.2d 847, 851 , and we consider the argument. In Nager Elec. Co. v. … Ragonese v.

G-D

22 I. & N. Dec. 1132 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1999

V. … The Board has also been criticized for our handling of questions of cumu- lativeness. See, e.g., Georgiu v.

14-24 145

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 30, 2015

Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 245 (1994) (quoting in part Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310 (1992)); see 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(a). … App. 180, 203, footnote 4 (citing Bowyer v. Brown, 7 Vet.

Est of Hawaii v. Commissioner

71 T.C. 1067 · United States Tax Court · Mar 28, 1979

Group, Inc. v. … Brown, 380 U.S. 563 (1965), Judge Harlan concurring, at 579-580, and Judge Goldberg dissenting, at 580.

Jennifer J. Erlendson v. Department of Justice

2014 MSPB 61 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Aug 4, 2014

. § 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii), cannot file a USERRA appeal with the Board); 2 Hereford v. … See Mitchell v.

Revolution Jewelry Works, Inc. v. Stonebrook Jewelry, LLC DBA Revolution Jewelry

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 7, 2022

Nabisco Inc. v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. … Inc. v. PC Auth.

1661, Inc. v. TF Intellectual Property Pty Ltd

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 27, 2024

v. … See also OMS Inv., Inc. v. Habit Horticulture LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 1074, at *3-4 (TTAB 2022); Hot Tamale Mama…and More, LLC v. SF Inv., Inc., 110 USPQ2d 1080, 1081 (TTAB 2014).

Anderson Snapper Boats, Inc.

215 Ct. Cl. 998 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1977

Donna Jean, Inc. v. United States, No. 105-77, is pending before Trial Judge White. … Leonard v. United States, No. 121-77, and Litrico v. United States, No. 517-77, are pending before Trial Judge Yock. Trial Judge Yock suspended proceedings in Leonard.

Morris Shelkofsky v. United States

110 Fed. Cl. 15 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 2013

Shelkofsky presented his claim first to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, so judicial review is limited to the Board’s resolution of the claim. Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. … Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Parwan Group Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jun 25, 2018

The Board's Jurisdiction over Counts III and IV Parwan bears the burden of proving the Board's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. … Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, 728 F.3d 1348, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We are not required, however, to accept as true legal conclusions inaccurately portrayed as factual allegations.

United States v. Morris European & American Express Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Dutilh v. Maxwell (2 Blatch., 541, Fed. Gas. No. 4, 207). … See also Gauthier v. Bell ( 10 Fed.

Skelly v. United States

685 F.2d 414 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 11, 1982

Co. v. United States, 226 Ct. … Whether or not the board decides to waive this requirement would be a matter within the board’s discretion, absent abuse of that discretion. Linair, Inc. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 654 (1979); Tapper v.

Intex Recreation Corp. and Intex Marketing Ltd. v. The Coleman Company, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Feb 24, 2016

v. The Coleman Company, Inc. George C. … Upon reviewing this material, as well as additional case law on the topic, the Board is particularly persuaded by the approach taken in Beverage Distributors, Inc. v.

H & M Moving, Inc. v. United States

499 F.2d 660 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 19, 1974

The board noted that both sides relied on the case of United States v. … In the above case, the Ninth Circuit cited one of its earlier opinions, California State Board of Equalization v.